Continental 0300 Yes or NO?
Rainer Virtanen
Looking at a 1956 Cessna 172 with Cont 0300.
380 hours since rebuilt 10 years ago.Runs great.
Would it be better to go with a Lycoming or are the 0300
troubles exaggerated?
Thanks in advance
Jerry
jga...@hotmail.com
In article <6e734r$jou$1...@news.bctel.net>,
"Rainer Virtanen" <squaw...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
> Looking at a 1956 Cessna 172 with Cont 0300.
> 380 hours since rebuilt 10 years ago.Runs great.
> Would it be better to go with a Lycoming or are the 0300
> troubles exaggerated?
>
Jerry,
The O-300 is not a bad engine, but it does have some weak points. These
being the cylinders. Unless the plane is flown quite frequently, the cylinders
rarely make it to TBO (resulting in a top end job). Some of the older rebuilt
(who knows how many times) cylinders have also shown a propensity for
developing unrepairable cracks around the exhaust valves.
On the other hand, O-300s that are well cared for are not much trouble at
all. The bottom end of this engine is virtually bulletproof. If you're
interested in an early model 172, just have your mechanic give the cylinders
some close attention at the pre-purchase inspection. Mine suggests having the
compression tested at the top, middle, and bottom of the stroke on each
piston.
To be fair, the Lycoming O-320 that replaced the Continental has its weak
points also. Sticking valves seem to top the list.
Just my $.02,
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180 and former owner of a '59 172)
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Dave Sutton
> "Rainer Virtanen" <squaw...@geocities.com> writes:
> Looking at a 1956 Cessna 172 with Cont 0300.
> 380 hours since rebuilt 10 years ago.Runs great.
> Would it be better to go with a Lycoming or are the 0300
> troubles exaggerated?
0-300's are great, smooth running engines.
Cylinders get weak every now and then but
the bottom ends are just about bulletproof.
I loved my old 172 with one, and at 2200 hours
since major it was running very well. Had done
a few cylinders, but nothing major. Good machinery.
Enjoy the price differential and buy it. The old 172's
are a joy to fly, and the mechanical flaps are great. The
'slope nose' straight tail ones have great visibiity as well.
Dave Sutton pil...@planet.net
Yak-50, Fouga Magister, DeHavilland Vampire, MiG-17
"There is no substitute for horsepower...."
Greg Bullough
In article <6e734r$jou$1...@news.bctel.net> "Rainer Virtanen" <squaw...@geocities.com> writes:
>Looking at a 1956 Cessna 172 with Cont 0300.
Classic! See? You take a completely plebian chunk of machinery and
if it survives 40 years it becomes a treasure!
>380 hours since rebuilt 10 years ago.Runs great.
Not so good. 38 hours a year is not enough to keep an engine
healthy, in the absence of special treatments during periods
(>1 month) of idleness. Now, if there was a top overhaul
last year, and a lot of flying since, you are in somewhat
better shape.
The fact that it 'runs great' is a good sign in that things
haven't completely ossified in there. However, the things that
don't show up immediately, such as deteriorating bearings and
premature wear on mating surfaces due to internal rust and
corrosion show up not in bad running right now, but perhaps
in the need for a premature top or major overhaul later.
Also, beware of 'runs great.' The O-300 is a fairly smooth
motor, so the little six tends to feel very nice to those
of us used to the big fours.
In other words, don't assume that 380SMOH ten years ago is a
good thing. 380SMOH two years ago would be a lot better!
>Would it be better to go with a Lycoming
Probably. It's a tougher engine, and cheaper to boot. It's less
prone to carb ice and there are four of a lot of things which the
0-300 has six of. The Lyc is more tolerant of 100LL fuel, if that's
what you have to use for some reason. Lead-fouled valves are a
misery on the O-200 and half again as bad on the O-300.
If you're running 100LL, figure on buying a good EGT in order to
lean properly, which is critical to avoid fouling valves and plugs
with lead.
Hope may be on the horizon, with the new 87 octane fuel that might
show up in a year or so.
However, the Lyc's not the engine in the plane, the price probably
reflects that fact. Quite possibly out of proportion to the actual
shortcomings of the engine.
At the end of the day, the O-300 is a perfectly adequate powerplant
which has a long history of flying people places safely and reliably,
with still reasonable economy to run and own.
>or are the 0300 troubles exaggerated?
Yes, they are. Troubles aren't any fun, so they get exaggerated.
Then again, it's easy to claim they are exagerated when they are
someone else's.
It's a trade-off. Ask yourself: does a conversation-piece aircraft
appeal to me on the plus side? Does the price reflect the higher
cost of ownership of the O-300? Do I understand that this engine,
given it's relative idleness, won't make it to TBO without at least
a top overhaul? Is there 80 octane or auto-fuel available at my
home field and most of the places I fly? Would an O-320 powered
bird, even for a couple thousand more dollars, meet my needs
better?
Greg
--
Greg Bullough | AFM Local 1000 AFL/CIO
g...@eclipse.net | K2GWB
| PP-ASEL
www.eclipse.net/~gwb for Compass Rogues & NY Chantey Sings
John R. Johnson
In my opinion the BEST 172's are the O-300 powered ones. That is
still one of the smoothest running airplane engines I have flown.
The only one I can think of that is smoother is the Franklin in
the Stinson 108 series!
As for time since rebuild ...
After 10 or 12 years, you likely need a rebuild merely because of age,
regardless of hours! The TBO on the Lycoming is 2000 hours or 12 years.
They used to be much less.
The continental was designed in a time when there was very little lead
in the gasoline they were fed. They do have a penchant for sticking
valves if 100LL is blithely substituted for the fuel they prefer.
That can be avoided by avoiding 100LL. They fly nicely and are a nice
smooth, easy starting engine. They are not terribly expensive to overhaul.
Superior makes excellent cylinders for them. If they have a weakness it
is a tendency for cylinders to fail before their time, particularly in
airplanes that are flown infrequently. Cylinder replacement is not
difficult. The lower ends seem to go on forever. I have seen many run
for well over two thousand hours with just an occaisional cylinder
replacement. Much of that can be alleviated by using NEW cylinders
instead of rebuilt ones.
John
On Wed, 11 Mar 1998, Rainer Virtanen wrote:
> Looking at a 1956 Cessna 172 with Cont 0300.
> 380 hours since rebuilt 10 years ago.Runs great.
> Would it be better to go with a Lycoming or are the 0300
> troubles exaggerated?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
Tina Marie
In article <6e7fsp$s...@jupiter.planet.net>,
Dave Sutton <nospam...@planet.net> wrote:
>Cylinders get weak every now and then but
>the bottom ends are just about bulletproof.
Okay. This has been bugging me for a while. What, exactly, is
the "top" and "bottom" of an engine? I've been assuming that a
"top" overhaul replaces the cylinders, and not much else, right?
Does the "bottom" mean the crankshaft/case? And, if so, why
don't they call it "inner" and "outer"?
Tina Marie
(too curious for her own good)
--
Love is...pretending you're the one who wanted to order dessert.
I refuse to give in to spammers - my return address is real!
NBD#5 - skydiver - student pilot - http://www.neosoft.com/~tina
Gregory Travis
In article <6e90dn$kc4$1...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>,
Tina Marie <ti...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>In article <6e7fsp$s...@jupiter.planet.net>,
>Dave Sutton <nospam...@planet.net> wrote:
>>Cylinders get weak every now and then but
>>the bottom ends are just about bulletproof.
>
>Okay. This has been bugging me for a while. What, exactly, is
>the "top" and "bottom" of an engine? I've been assuming that a
>"top" overhaul replaces the cylinders, and not much else, right?
>
>Does the "bottom" mean the crankshaft/case? And, if so, why
>don't they call it "inner" and "outer"?
Tina,
The term largely derives from automotive use where the engine
is aligned vertically, not horizontally. Your terms are "better"
for aircraft engines but since most mechanics are familiar with
auto engines, the auto engine terminology stuck.
Generically:
"Top end" - Cylinders, pistons, rings, valves, valve operating mechanism,
Head(s)
"Bottom end" - Crankcase (block), Crankshaft, Camshaft, bearings.
greg
Mark D Jones
>Looking at a 1956 Cessna 172 with Cont 0300.
>380 hours since rebuilt 10 years ago.Runs great.
>Would it be better to go with a Lycoming or are the 0300
>troubles exaggerated?
>
>Thanks in advance
>Jerry
>
>
The O-300 has more cylinders to maintain than the 4 cylinder but
several people I know that have them think they are more reliable and
smoother running than the Lycoming. I have a Cessna 150 with the
O-200 and it holds up pretty well considering.
Mark D Jones CFI
ac...@airmail.net
Joe User
I owned a x-CAP 1961 Cessna 172B, when I got it it had been totaled twice
and repaired by a college. The engine was the 0-300 and it had 600 hours on
it.
Perhaps this was just a special plane to me as it was the one I had soloed
in 14 years earlier.
As to the 0-300, it is just a 0-200 with 2 more jugs., but that is where the
problems happen. The 6 does run very smooth and its 145hp is plenty of
power. Every year (an avg.. of 150 hours per year) I had to replace one of
the rear jugs, at around $1100. I flew this aircraft HARD, lots of off
field (logging road) ops. ran some of the worst fuel through her and she
never hiccuped.
Sadly I lost N7219X to a divorce, and now am the proud owner of a 1946
Ercoupe
Would buy another early 172, YES, the price difference from the lycoming
off sets the maintenance. A little babying and she will run and run.
any way my .02 worth
Mark D Jones wrote in message
<6209A744A5AAF537.EAEDE05F...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
richthe...@gmail.com
Larry Dighera
>Do you guys think it better to run 87 Oct rather than 100 LL , why and where do u find it ?
and just lean the mixture during taxi. Failure to lean the mixture does result
in plug fouling, so the PIC must be diligent.
If you Google "80/87 avgas" you'll find a lot more information on the subject.
There do appear to be some new alternatives...
noahc...@gmail.com
> Do you guys think it better to run 87 Oct rather than 100 LL , why and where do u find it ?
Stjepan Nikolic
22 years later I own 1960 172A with O300-C and flying almost on a daily basis.. It is a world different aircraft from my flying school's C172N 4 cyl Lycoming o320.. Certainly C172N has 20hp more and flies 10kts faster, however in my opinion C172A flies "better" and is not nose-heavy as N model.
300 cubic inches is actually 5 lit (5000cc) engine, which is not small in automotive world, therefore not sure where the "small" engine is coming from.
145hp divided by 6 cylinders or 5000cc means the engine is not tuned for super performances, neither engine is running over-stressed unless you prefer flying faster. It's the old school built to last. I've heard about cases when one cylinder failed, other 5 took the aircraft to the aerodrome.
Fly regularly (this applies to all engines), make sure it has the oil as per spec, make sure cht and oil temps are in green (you can climb slower at speed higher than Vy, e.g. 80kts, thus cooling the engine more), once straight&level reduce to 2200rpm and watch how temps are going down.. Generally, look after your engine and it will last much more than TBO. Mike Busch mentioned in one of his Youtube videos he runs 250% of TBO.
Finally I don't think anything can replace the truck-like sound coming out of 6cyl o300 .. My answer to the question is obviously YES :)
Safe landings!